Solzhenitsyn: you should change the question by asking. How would you feel if our child died on a Monday because of not accepting a blood transfusion to find out on the Tuesday that the GB had reversed their policy on it due to new light and that the are neither inspired or indelible. I would be interested to hear her response.

JWs have refined their point of view regarding blood transfusions over the past two and a half decades. Currently, JWs are permitted to accept practically any fractionated blood product, including immune globulins, clotting factors, albumin, and even products like Hemopure which is a hemoglobin extract derived from bovine erythrocytes. The decision is dependent on the individual JW's conscience. They cannot, however, accept infusions of packed red cell concentrate, plasma, or platelets without judicial action being taken against them by their church leaders. Consider also that up until 1980, Jehovah's Witnesses were forbidden to accept tissue and organ transplants, and then suddenly the issue became a "matter of conscience" for individual JWs.

The dilemma, it appears, is that while conscientious decisions by definition are firmly held convictions based on an individual's thought processes interacting with their belief system, Jehovah's Witnesses' "conscientious decisions" are the result of whatever happens to be the 'doctrine du jour' as published in the Watchtower Society's literature, meaning that someone who steadfastly refused to accept blood fractions or organ transplants one day because "Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept" them, will read "new light" in an up-to-date issue of the Watchtower and suddenly realize that they no longer need to refuse these treatments, because they will no longer be punished by their church for accepting them. So the question becomes, Are these "conscientious decisions" really the result of firmly held convictions? If they can so easily be cast aside, upon the reading of a sentence or two in a periodical, without any other thought process in the matter, it would appear that the concept of "firm convictions" and "deeply held beliefs" is over-ruled by convenience and the removal of any negative spiritual or social result for the person claiming the decision.

joe134cd: Had another conversation with my wife and her response was: "Why are you creating a hypothetical scenario that the odds of happening are as good as one of the kids getting struck by lightning? I would be devastated if they died on Monday from refusal of blood. I would be devastated if it was forced on them and found out they had AIDS on a Wednesday. I would be devastated on a resurrection Saturday when again I was reminded why you aren't there with me after going against Jehovah having allowed the transfusion and violating His law. Commit adultery, be a drunk, be a thief, take blood...a sin, is a sin, is a sin"

And there you go as we all shake our heads. The light at the end of the tunnel for me is that I felt exactly the same way as she did for decades! Now I do not. No single person changed my mind for me. I just woke up and pray she does the same.